DOCSLIB.ORG

Inclusionary Eminent Domain Gerald S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Inclusionary Eminent Domain Gerald S Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 45 Article 12 Issue 3 2014 Spring 2014 Inclusionary Eminent Domain Gerald S. Dickinson Reed Smith LLP Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Gerald S. Dickinson, Inclusionary Eminent Domain, 45 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 845 (2014). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol45/iss3/12 This Non-Conference Contribution is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DICKINSON.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 4/1/2014 10:44 PM Inclusionary Eminent Domain Gerald S. Dickinson* This Article proposes a paradigm shift in takings law, namely “inclusionary eminent domain.” This new normative concept serves as a framework that molds eminent domain takings and economic redevelopment into an inclusionary land assembly model that is equipped with multiple tools to help guide municipalities, private developers and communities construct or preserve affordable housing developments. The tools to achieve this include Community Benefits Agreements (“CBAs”), Land Assembly Districts (“LADs”), Community Development Corporations (“CDCs”), Land Banks (“LABs”), Community Land Trusts (CLTs) and Neighborhood Improvement Districts (“NIDs”). The origins of the concept derive from the zoning law context, where exclusionary zoning in the suburbs excluded affordable housing for low- income residents. Courts intervened, applying exclusionary zoning doctrines, which led to the enactment of inclusionary zoning programs to achieve a fair share of housing. Exclusionary eminent domain in urban areas, similarly, has displaced and decreased the stock of or denied access to affordable housing through the power of takings. Under an exclusionary eminent domain doctrine, courts would apply heightened review to condemnations in a locality that has less than its fair share of affordable housing. But in a post-Kelo era of takings, doctrinal solutions may not be enough. Analogous to inclusionary zoning, inclusionary eminent domain helps us rethink how to fix these ubiquitous land problems. Indeed, this Article moves us beyond the doctrinal muddle and instead incorporates both the intellectual musings of takings and zoning law with an assessment of how * Associate, Real Estate Group, Reed Smith LLP (Pittsburgh); J.D., Fordham University School of Law; U.S. Fulbright Scholar, Centre for Applied Legal Studies, University of the Witwatersrand School of Law (Johannesburg, South Africa); B.A., College of the Holy Cross. Special thanks to Nestor Davidson for his guidance and influence over the last several years. Thanks to Sheila Foster, Brian Glick, Russell Pearce, Frank Alexander, Joseph Singer, Eduardo Peñalver and Luke Brindle-Khym for helpful comments and suggestions on later drafts of this Article. The views expressed and proposals set forth are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Real Estate Group. Contact: [email protected]. 845 DICKINSON.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 4/1/2014 10:44 PM 846 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal [Vol. 45 innovative tools can be practically applied to construct and preserve affordable housing in eminent domain takings for economic redevelopment. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 846 I. LAND USE CONTROLS, LAND ASSEMBLY & EXCLUSION ................. 850 A. Exclusionary Zoning ............................................................... 853 1. Urban Sprawl and Exclusion ............................................ 853 2. Exclusionary Zoning Doctrine .......................................... 856 B. Exclusionary Eminent Domain................................................ 858 1. Urban Redevelopment and Displacement ......................... 859 2. Exclusionary Eminent Domain Doctrine .......................... 868 II. CONCEPTUALIZING A NEW EMINENT DOMAIN PARADIGM.............. 871 A. Inclusionary Zoning ................................................................ 871 1. The Tools of Inclusionary Zoning .................................... 873 a. Builder’s Remedy ....................................................... 873 b. Set-Aside Program ...................................................... 876 c. Density Bonus ............................................................. 877 d. In-Lieu Fee.................................................................. 880 B. Inclusionary Eminent Domain ................................................ 881 1. The Concept ...................................................................... 881 2. The Elements .................................................................... 883 III. THE TOOLS OF INCLUSIONARY EMINENT DOMAIN .......................... 888 A. Community Benefits Agreement .............................................. 888 B. Land Assembly District ........................................................... 895 C. Community Development Corporation ................................... 898 D. Community Land Trust ............................................................ 901 E. Land Bank ............................................................................... 903 F. Neighborhood Improvement District ...................................... 908 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 913 INTRODUCTION Inclusionary eminent domain is a new normative concept— paradoxical in nature—that rethinks eminent domain takings as an inclusionary land assembly process structured through a framework that is equipped with multiple tools to help guide municipalities, private DICKINSON.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 4/1/2014 10:44 PM 2014] Inclusionary Eminent Domain 847 developers and communities1 construct or preserve affordable housing within economic redevelopment projects. This idea is particularly important where condemnation threatens the loss of affordable housing and displacement of low-income residents. This new paradigm is ex ante and ex post; that is, the exercise of inclusionary eminent domain would assemble land or negotiate the use of land—prior to, during or after condemnation proceedings—to accommodate affordable housing developments within economic redevelopment projects. The tools to achieve this include Community Benefits Agreements (“CBAs”), Land Assembly Districts (“LADs”), Community Development Corporations (“CDCs”), Community Land Trusts (“CLTs”), Land Banks (“LABs”) and Neighborhood Improvement Districts (“NIDs”). Here, the tools are adjusted from their traditional purpose to fit within this new eminent domain paradigm. This new framework gives private developers, municipalities and communities a more transparent set of tools that guide the development process to reduce the phenomena of displacing residents and decreasing the supply of affordable housing. Indeed, this Article calls for developers, municipalities and communities to rethink how to plan for inclusion. Part I draws parallels between exclusionary zoning and exclusionary eminent domain by revisiting the purpose, use and abuse of local zoning powers and takings in the United States. In particular, this Part discusses briefly how exclusionary zoning actively excluded affordable housing by artificially raising the property values and the price of rent beyond the income levels of low-income families, thereby denying them access to residential property in affluent neighborhoods.2 The practice 1. The term “community” is used interchangeably in this Article with “property owners,” “residents” or “low-income families.” 2. For a comprehensive discussion of exclusionary zoning, see Lawrence Gene Sager, Tight Little Islands: Exclusionary Zoning, Equal Protection, and the Indigent, 21 STAN. L. REV. 767 (1968) (applying the equal protection doctrine to exclusionary zoning situations). See generally RICHARD BABCOCK & FRED BOSSELMAN, EXCLUSIONARY ZONING (1973) (discussing how land use controls have resulted in the exclusion of those with low or moderate incomes); Frank A. Aloi, Arthur Abba Goldberg & James M. White, Racial and Economic Segregation by Zoning: Death Knell for Home Rule?, 1 U. TOL. L. REV. 65 (1969) (discussing a constitutional economic right to suburban housing); William Fischel, An Economic History of Zoning and a Cure for Its Exclusionary Effects, 41 URB. STUD. 317 (2004) (outlining the history of zoning and proposing home-equity insurance to reduce the demand for exclusionary zoning); Harold A. McDougall, The Judicial Struggle Against Exclusionary Zoning: The New Jersey Paradigm, 14 HARV. C.R.- C.L. L. REV. 625 (1979) (examining the New Jersey Supreme Court’s actions involving exclusionary zoning); John R. Nolon, A Comparative Analysis of New Jersey’s Mount Laurel Cases with the Berenson Cases in New York, 4 PACE ENVTL. L. REV. 3 (1986) (comparing two state court decisions regarding exclusionary zoning that led to vastly different results); John M. Payne, Delegation Doctrine in the Reform of Local Government Law: The Case of Exclusionary Zoning, 29 RUTGERS L. REV. 803 (1976) (exploring the defects of the doctrinal approach to DICKINSON.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 4/1/2014 10:44 PM 848 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal [Vol. 45 forced courts to look narrowly at a zoning code’s intended purposes, called exclusionary zoning doctrine, which essentially provided that
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Inclusionary Zoning Primer Updated August 2019
    Inclusionary Zoning Primer Updated August 2019 1201 15th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 T 800 368 5242 nahb.org Table of Contents Executive Summary and Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….3 Research on Inclusionary Zoning……………………………………………………………………………………………7 Price and Production Effects……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………7 Statutory, Implementation, and Effectiveness Issues……………………………………………………………………………….……10 Latest Reports……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….19 The Role of Incentives in Closing the Affordability Gap in Inclusionary Zoning………………………………………………25 Promising State and Local Alternatives for Providing Affordable Housing ……………………………27 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..32 Appendix……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..33 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………44 Cover photo of Luminaira at Parasol Park, photo courtesy of Tsutumida Pictures 2 Executive Summary and Introduction Millions of American families struggle to find housing at a price they can afford as the gap between incomes and the cost of housing grows larger every year. Many families are forced to commute long distances, pay a disproportionate share of their incomes on housing, or live in housing that does not meet their needs. The reasons for this gap are many. Local governments have developed plans that foster job growth but do not provide sufficient housing for workers, and some discourage or limit multifamily housing. Elaborate planning and zoning schemes, or outdated ones, make it difficult to develop land and a variety of housing types, especially the affordable housing needed to keep up with demand. Complex, lengthy, and uncertain development approval processes, fees imposed on new housing and environmental requirements constrain the availability of developable land and drive up the cost of housing. Those resisting higher density development (often referred to as NIMBY groups) have become more sophisticated and organized over time to deter growth and development.
    [Show full text]
  • City Housing Trust Fund Revenues 2021
    Housing Trust Fund Project housingtrustfundproject.org City Housing Trust Fund Revenues 2021 City Housing Trust Fund Revenue Sources Notes Juneau, Alaska Housing Trust Fund General Fund and State Capital Budget MF rental conversion fee; Tucson, Arizona Housing Trust Fund Unexpended funds from Utility Services LI Assitance Program Anaheim, California Housing Trust Fund Transient occupany tax Residential impact fees; Berkeley, California Housing Trust Fund Developer impact fees; real estate Other transfer tax; General Obligation Bond Campbell, California Housing Trust Fund Inclusionary in-lieu fees Developer impact fees; Citrus Heights, California Affordable Housing Trust Fund Other Inclusionary in-lieu fees Cupertino, California Affordable Housing Fund Developer impact fees Elk Grove, California Affordable Housing Fund Developer impact fees Developer impact fees; Emeryville, California Affordable Housing Fund Inclusionary in-lieu fees Affordable Housing Development Fremont, California Develop impact fees Fund Livermore, California Housing Trust Fund Inclusionary in-lieu fees Program income Long Beach, California Housing Trust Fund Transient occupancy tax Tax increment financing; Los Angeles, California Affordable Housing Trust Fund Federal funds General Fund (DWP) Affordable Housing Impact Trust Linkage Fee Los Angeles, California Fund Mammoth Lakes, California Housing Trust Fund Transient occupancy tax State and Federal funds Below Market Rate Housing Menlo Park, California Developer impact fees Loan repayments Program Morgan Hill, California
    [Show full text]
  • Calculation of Owner-Occupied Dwelling Services In
    Calculation of Owner-Occupied Dwelling Services in Georgia Abstract Output of owner-occupied dwellings (OOD) is included within the production boundary according to the System of National Accounts. Different methods may be selected for measuring OOD services due to housing market development level. The paper presents estimation of services produced by OODs based on a User Cost Method, which replaced a self-assessment method in 2019 year in the National Accounts of Georgia during the general revision of time series. Key words: Owner-Occupied Dwellings, Imputed rent, User Cost Method Author: Levan Karsaulidze – Head of National Accounts Department, National Statistics Office of Georgia Introduction Imputed rents, representing services produced by owner-occupied dwellings (OOD), has always been included within the production boundary of National Account and are part of the official GDP estimates of Georgia as well. In 2019 transition to the SNA 2008 was implemented1 in the National Accounts of Georgia from the SNA 1993, accompanied with a general revision of time series. Along with other major changes related to the newly adopted methodology, user-cost method was implemented for measuring imputed rents for owner occupied houses, while self-assessment method was used until 2019 year. The paper describes a methodological background and detailed calculation steps for measuring imputed rents of OODs in Georgia, based on the user-cost method, briefly summarizes widely used approaches for estimating services of OODs and provides arguments for adopting the use-cost method for the country. Final results are presented in the last part of the paper. 1. Methodological Framework Methodology for measuring imputed rents of owner-occupied dwellings differs by country based on a rental market development level.
    [Show full text]
  • Residential Area Plan
    CHAPTER 6 RESIDENTIAL AREA PLAN Brentwood’s residential neighborhoods are one of the most The Objectives identified in the Residential Area Plan are significant contributors to its unique character and identity . intended to: Throughout the planning process residents expressed their vision and concerns for the City’s residential areas . The Res- • Maintain Brentwood’s character and identity idential Area Plan builds on public input and the future Land • Ensure quality housing stock remains a staple of the Use & Development Plan to provide policies and recommen- community dations as well as further define the type and location of each • Maintain the optimal balance of housing types within the residential land use . The location of each residential land use community is illustrated in the Residential Area Plan . • Ensure compatibility between the City’s commercial areas and its residential neighborhoods • Ensure compatibility between infill and existing residential development • Encourage a diversity of housing types, sizes and prices 60 Comprehensive Plan | Brentwood RESIDENTIAL LAND USE PLAN 170 RICHMOND HEIGHTS 64 40 EAGER RD 64 40 LADUE BRENTWOOD Wrenwood Ln FOREST Middlesex Dr Middlesex CONDOMINIUMS THE VILLAS AT BRENTWOOD STRASSNER DR HANLEY STATION Pine Ave MCKNIGHT RD MCKNIGHT Sonora Ave HIGH SCHOOL DR SCHOOL HIGH MEMORIAL PARK BRENTWOOD MAPLEWOOD Saint Clair Ave Clair Saint Park Ridge Ave Ridge Park BRENTWOOD POLICE MIDDLE & Bridgeport Ave DEPARTMENT HIGH Hanley Industrial Ct MT. CALVARY White Ave LUTHERAN PRESCHOOL Rosalie Ave MCGRATH Harrison Ave CITY ELEMENTARY HALL BROUGHTON PARK LITZSINGER RD Eulalie Ave BRENTWOOD FIRE DEPARTMENT MARK TWAIN ELEMENTARY HANLEYRD Annalee Ave Dorothy Ave Kentland Dr Joseph Ave OAK Bremerton Rd ROGERS TREE ROCK HILL Madge Ave BRENTWOODBLVD PARKWAY PARK Powell Ave ST.
    [Show full text]
  • 6. Analysis of Constraints to Housing
    CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023 6. ANALYSIS OF CONSTRAINTS TO HOUSING A. GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS Governmental policies and regulations can have both positive and negative effects on the availability and affordability of housing and supportive services. This chapter of the Housing Element describes the policies and strategies that provide incentives for housing in Oakland that have resulted in significant contributions to the City’s housing stock. This chapter also analyzes City policies and regulations that could potentially constrain the City’s abilities to achieve its housing objectives. Constraints to housing can include land use controls, development standards, infrastructure requirements, residential development fees, and development approval processes, along with non-governmental constraints such as financing. A brief discussion of the City’s policy and regulatory context is presented below. Since 1998, the City of Oakland has undertaken actions to reduce the impact of local government regulations and fees on the cost and availability of housing. Beginning with the General Plan update in 1998, the City has: • increased residential densities, • created new mixed-use housing opportunities along major transportation corridors and in the downtown, • reduced open space requirements in high density residential zones in the Downtown and in the Transit Oriented Development Zone (S-15), • streamlined the environmental review process for downtown projects, • adopted a Density Bonus Ordinance, • adopted a secondary unit ordinance and streamlined the process for approval, • created new fast-track and streamlined permit processes, and • adopted Standard Conditions of Approval to, in part, streamline the CEQA review process. Land Use Policies and Regulations Discretionary land use control in Oakland is exercised by the Planning Commission and the City Council, and administered by the Planning and Building Department, Bureau of Planning.
    [Show full text]
  • The Persistence of Exclusionary Zoning in New Jersey
    The Persistence of Exclusionary Zoning in New Jersey by Noelle van Baaren, Center for Law in Metropolitan Equity Fellow Introduction: Since 1975, the Mount Laurel doctrine has required that New Jersey municipalities provide their fair share of the regional need for low and moderate-income housing.[1] Yet despite this landmark decision, New Jersey is still one of the top ten most racially and economically segregated states.[2] In this paper, I will provide a working definition of exclusionary zoning in the both the economic and racial contexts. I will argue that despite the powerful efforts of the judiciary to position New Jersey’s at the forefront of inclusionary land use policy, the practice of exclusionary zoning is both persistent and widespread. In Part I of this paper, I will provide a definition of exclusionary zoning in the context of both economics and race. In Part II, I will examine the types of ordinances that municipalities use as subterfuge to create the same exclusionary effect that existed before the Mount Laurel cases. In Part III, I will argue that exclusionary zoning is not legally permissible in New Jersey under the New Jersey Fair Housing Act NJFHA. In Part IV, I will examine census data to see to what degree exclusionary zoning still exists in New Jersey, despite the Mount Laurel Doctrine, NJFHA and Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) and demonstrate that where exclusionary zoning does exist, it disproportionately impacts minorities. Finally in Part V, I will look at the practice of inclusionary zoning – and the impact that implementing these type of land use policies could have in the greater context of regional equity.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cost of Affordability: Inclusionary Zoning and Displacement in East New York James Shelton
    The Cost of Affordability: Inclusionary Zoning and Displacement in East New York James Shelton What are the impacts of New York City’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing program upon low- income communities of color? James Shelton offers new insights in a consideration of the recent East New York rezoning. Population growth and a steady increase in housing costs since the mid-1990s has led to a crisis of housing affordability and access in New York City. To address this, Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration has embarked on an ambitious campaign1 to generate 300,000 units of affordable housing by 2026. A key strategy to achieve this goal involved the adoption of the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) program, a zoning tool which allows for substantial increases in residential density in exchange for affordable housing. However, the application of MIH in largely low-income, majority non-white areas has heightened the risk of residential displacement in these communities, with the affordability requirements doing little to mitigate this threat for many of the city’s lowest-income residents. New York City’s MIH program has included rezoning proposals for the low-income neighborhoods of East New York, East Harlem, Inwood, Downtown Far Rockaway, Flushing West, and the Jerome Avenue corridor, while avoiding proposals for low-density, transit-rich areas like Forest Hills, which appear to be good candidates for MIH but are largely white and middle- to upper-class. In 2016, the first MIH rezoning was approved in East New York, located at the eastern edge of Brooklyn. The city contends that the upzoning will be a cost-effective means of building much needed affordable housing and fostering income diversity in the neighborhood.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Racist Planning Practices in Portland
    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS) Primary Author Jena Hughes, Planning Assistant Contributors Tom Armstrong, Supervising Planner Ryan Curren, Management Analyst Eric Engstrom, Principal Planner Love Jonson, Planning Assistant (former) Nick Kobel, Associate Planner Neil Loehlein, GIS Leslie Lum, East District Planner Deborah Stein, Principal Planner (former) Sandra Wood, Principal Planner Joe Zehnder, Chief Planner Communications Eden Dabbs Cover Design Krista Gust, Graphic Designer Bureau Partners Avel Gordly, Former Oregon State Senator Cameron Herrington (Living Cully) Allan Lazo (Fair Housing Council of Oregon) Kim McCarty (Portland Housing Bureau) Felicia Tripp (Portland Leadership Foundation) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 4 EARLY PLANNING AND THE BEGINNING OF EXCLUSIONARY ZONING ........................................ 5 1900-1930: Early zoning ..................................................................................................................... 5 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s: Expansion of single-family zoning ................................................... 8 1960s and 1970s: Increased neighborhood power in land use decisions ............................ 11 CONTEMPORARY PLANNING, 1980 TO EARLY 2000s ..................................................................... 11 1980 Comprehensive Plan: More single-family zoning ............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rails to Real Estate Development Patterns Along
    Rails to Real Estate Development Patterns along Three New Transit Lines March 2011 About This Study Rails to Real Estate was prepared by the Center for Transit-Oriented Development (CTOD). The CTOD is the only national nonprofit effort dedicated to providing best practices, research and tools to support market- based development in pedestrian-friendly communities near public transportation. We are a partnership of two national nonprofit organizations – Reconnecting America and the Center for Neighborhood Technology – and a research and consulting firm, Strategic Economics. Together, we work at the intersection of transportation planning, regional planning, climate change and sustainability, affordability, economic development, real estate and investment. Our goal is to help create neighborhoods where young and old, rich and poor, can live comfortably and prosper, with affordable and healthy lifestyle choices and ample and easy access to opportunity for all. Report Authors This report was prepared by Nadine Fogarty and Mason Austin, staff of Strategic Economics and CTOD. Additional support and assistance was provided by Eli Popuch, Dena Belzer, Jeff Wood, Abigail Thorne-Lyman, Allison Nemirow and Melissa Higbee. Acknowledgements The Center for Transit-Oriented Development would like to thank the Federal Transit Administration. The authors are also grateful to several persons who assisted with data collection and participated in interviews, including: Bill Sirois, Denver Regional Transit District; Catherine Cox-Blair, Reconnecting America; Caryn Wenzara, City of Denver; Frank Cannon, Continuum Partners, LLC; Gideon Berger, Urban Land Institute/Rose Center; Karen Good, City of Denver; Kent Main, City of Charlotte; Loretta Daniel, City of Aurora; Mark Fabel, McGough; Mark Garner, City of Minneapolis; Michael Lander, Lander Group; Norm Bjornnes, Oaks Properties LLC; Paul Mogush, City of Minneapolis; Peter Q.
    [Show full text]
  • Ordinance of the City of Jersey City, N.J
    Ordinance of the City of Jersey City, N.J. File No. Ord. 20-089 Agenda No. 3.1 (1st Reading) Agenda No. 4.1 (2nd Reading and Final Passage) AN ORDINANCE CREATING CHAPTER 187 (INCLUSIONARY ZONING) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRING THE INCLUSION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS IN ALL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH RESIDENTIAL WHICH HAVE RECEIVED USE VARIANCES OR INCREASED DENSITY OR HEIGHT. COUNCIL AS A WHOLE offered and moved adoption of the following ordinance: WHEREAS, a purpose of the Municipal Land Use Law (hereinafter “the M.L.U.L.”), at N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2.a, is to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in this state in a manner which will promote the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare; and WHEREAS, a purpose of the M.L.U.L., at N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2.e, is to promote the establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the well-being of persons, neighborhoods, communities and regions and preservation of the environment; and WHEREAS, the City of Jersey City has adopted a Housing Element, as per N.J.S.A. 52:27D-311, the “municipality may provide for its fair share and low and moderate income housing by means of any technique or combination of techniques which provide a realistic opportunity for the provision of the fair share”; and WHEREAS, the Municipal Council of the City of Jersey City wishes to ensure that as the City grows and attracts market-rate residential development that it also provides opportunity for the City to meet its resident’s, current and future, affordable housing needs; and WHEREAS, an inclusionary ordinance with incentives and requiring a mandatory set-aside of affordable housing on- site is an effective and fair means of encouraging and ensuring the production of affordable housing by private sector developers recognized by the New Jersey Supreme Court inSo.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Waterfront
    PORTFOLIO Miami is undergoing a big bounce-back from the O N THE 2008 property crash. This time, developers are thinking on a grander scale, aiming to create a truly cosmopolitan city beyond beach chic and bling. WATERFRONT STORY SOPHIE KALKREUTH 70 THE PEAK THE PEAK 71 PORTFOLIO • PROPERTY riving along US Route about 100 new condo towers under 1 in the early evening, construction, many of them luxury Miami’s skyline rises towers with units priced upwards of above the flat land, its US$30 million. concrete and steel- The most coveted area among Dwrapped towers lit by the orange well-heeled buyers continues to be glow of a tropical sunset. To the Miami Beach, the slender barrier east, a stretch of powder white sand island between Biscayne Bay and meets a long sweep of the turquoise the Atlantic. Last year, a Miami sea, and to the west, the fading light Beach apartment sold for US$34 leads to the Everglades swamp. million. The record-breaking sale In Miami Beach, neon signs glow was for two triplex penthouses against the pastel facades of Art totalling 16,271 square feet across Deco buildings and Ferraris hum three levels at The Residences along Ocean Drive where tourists at Miami Beach Edition, a new gather for evening revelry in beach John Pawson-designed hotel- couture and flip-flops. condominium project. A US$60 This is a city of juxtapositions. million duplex penthouse is also It is a pre-eminent beach reportedly under contract at Faena resort that pulses with cultural House on Miami Beach, though dynamism thanks to an influx the sale has not yet closed.
    [Show full text]
  • Article 3. Zoning Districts & Land Uses
    ARTICLE 3. ZONING DISTRICTS & LAND USES 38.300 Zones, Maps & Designations (Article 7) FOOTNOTE(S): --- (6) --- State Law reference— Municipal zoning, MCA 76-2-301 et seq. Part 1: Zoning Districts & Zoning Map Sec. 38.300.010. - Use districts designated, zoning map adopted. (38.07.010) A. The city is divided into zones, or districts, as shown on the official zoning map which, together with all explanatory matter thereon, is adopted by this reference and declared to be a part of this chapter. B. For the purpose of this chapter, the city is divided and classified into the following use districts: R-S Residential Suburban District R-1 Residential Single-Household Low Density District R-2 Residential Two-Household Medium Density District R-3 Residential Medium Density District R-4 Residential High Density District R-5 Residential Mixed-Use High Density District R-O Residential-Office District RMH Residential Manufactured Home Community District B-1 Neighborhood Business District B-2 Community Business District B-2M Community Business District - Mixed B-3 Central Business District UMU Urban Mixed-Use District M-1 Light Manufacturing District M-2 Manufacturing and Industrial District B-P Business Park District PLI Public Lands and Institutions District NEHMU Northeast Historic Mixed-Use District NC Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District EO Entryway Corridor Overlay District CO Casino Overlay District REMU Residential Emphasis Mixed-use District C. Placement of any given zoning district on an area depicted on the zoning map indicates a judgment on the part of the city that the range of uses allowed within that district are generally acceptable in that location.
    [Show full text]